IAmNick

Ok. So lets look at the last few years. 2020/21. Promoted: Norwich: +£27.6m on transfers that summer Watford: +£45.5m Brentford: +£49.2m 2019/20. Promoted: Leeds: +£27.3m West Brom: +£14.2m Fulham: -£7.65m 2018/19. Promoted: Norwich: +£28.9m Sheffield Utd: +£5.13m Villa: -£2.66m So who were the teams above selling, most making £20m+ profit each year, if those not their better players?

That's because I've only just started on the beers I bought on the way home in anger. Give it a little while...

So your even better plan is to just hold on to our good players - presumably preventing moves they want to the premiership... and they'll sign new contracts with us why? Then buy a "balanced team" using what money exactly, as we're no longer selling our good players? And not replace the ones we lose with lower league players - so we're signing Championship players then with what money, and on what wages? I'd be interested how your model is any more sustainable. The money to do the above has to come from somewhere. It's easy with hindsight to point at the one or two clubs who've done it, rather than the many others who haven't. I had a look at your posts and don't really see any saying the above. I saw one calling Brownhill "Mr Bang Average" though so I can see your eye for a quality player there

Not sure what being left/green has to do with riots or rage really - I doubt you're implying the groups you mentioned above were right wing, like punks etc. I'd also point out Bristol has had some extremely high profile "civil disobedience" in the last few years. The Colston statue, obviously, and the stuff at the police station in the last year when the police van got set on fire. Both made national (or international) news. The real difference? This time the City fans were on the side of tradition, stability, and law and order, rather than the disobedient side maybe that's the problem. The rage is still there as it always way, it's just directed at larger power structures now rather than other people imo... for better or for worse.

I think it's for both. Players often talk about it don't they, and if they're going to have 20k people scrutinising their every move for 90m surely support is better than anything else? You've never experienced the effect of a crowd on a game - either positive or negative? Your argument is really odd and seems a bit hung up on the amount they make. They didn't decide that, it's the going rate and it's not their fault. Money doesn't make you feel "less shit" on a Tuesday night if you're playing like crap, losing, and the crowd are on your back. I seriously doubt almost any player will be going "Ah well another 5k at the end of the week never mind eh, who's in charge of the half time orange slices this week?". If you were one of the best in the world you probably would be paid 10k a week for that spreadsheet and have a group of people hanging off your every word at conferences or whatever!

Money is demonstrably a pretty poor motivator of people... Maybe you'd rather watch a team who are motivated based on their wage but I wouldn't. I suspect you don't have 20k people who have paid to watch you fill in that spreadsheet! I remember complaints about the atmosphere back when the EE was open, endless arguments between the "netters" and the others about who was singing too fast, the rest of the ground saying they couldn't hear it properly due to the roof etc. etc. What gets an atmosphere going is exciting football. When we play it, the atmosphere is decent imo... but we've had a severe lack of that for years now. Maybe the possession based slowly slowly approach is one to get the purists going but quick, incisive, attacking football - or even players fighting battles and winning tackles will get the atmosphere back. Imo you could shuffle the fans and it's not going to change anything. Put the main singers in the worst bit of the ground and an exciting game in front of them and the ground will be rocking regardless.

Of course, and as someone with a season ticket who doesn't go to away games currently I'm not exactly saying it's great. It's still better than I expected at the start of the season though so I'll take it. Overall I'm happy enough currently - although If every game starts trending towards performances like yesterday I'd probably change my tune. I'm reasonably confident that wont happen though! Given I consider us a lower mid table team I'm trying to be a bit more stoic this year in the face of crap performances, as that's exactly what I'm expecting a few of unfortunately...

If there was a widely accepted risk of relegation and he currently had them in 11th I'd strongly disagree, crap home form or not. At the start of the year most were talking about survival, building, and finishing 20th if we have to. Now we're pretty happily mid table and people are calling for him to get the sack. Absolutely madness.

Thought this was the first game this season we were totally outclassed, and given we're 12 games in that's better than I was expecting. That said though, I'm struggling with where we were on the scale between being outclassed because they were so much better, and outclassed because we were awful. A team playing very well can make you look awful, and clearly we had a pretty awful start with still no Massengo, Atkinson out, and Williams off after 10m... but I was still disappointed that it didn't feel we were at least battling all over the pitch - even if we were losing all those battles. I could accept that, but feel like apart from a few (like Kalas) we didn't even get that far. I'd rather we fought and lost the fight, than didn't fight at all. I was just desperate for us to let them have the ball then get properly stuck in to them once they got forward rather than randomly attempt some poorly executed "press" high up the pitch. They were good enough they just passed around it and made us look a bit foolish, and I thought the whole attempt was rather pointless against a team that good. Oh well. 12 games in and we're 11th. Better than I was expecting and I can accept one very poor performance... not seeing a win at home is really starting to get to me though I have to say!

As we all do I generally surround myself with people who broadly have similar opinions to me. I like coming on here for a "discussion" as I get a whole range of stuff I don't normally get first hand. It's interesting. Also I'm just an argumentative bugger as well of course

Can you link some info about this please? Were they prevented due to white privilege? Just had a look and all I can find that even seems to be slightly related is A&S having to pay out to a single white person fifteen years ago, with this Colin Port admitting it was wrong to discriminate based on his race. Not so accepted then..? Maybe I'm missing something. A study in the US found exactly this. They can feel guilty if they want, but excesses of virtue are worse than excesses of vice as the former isn’t subject to the regulation of conscience. Can you link the study please? What do you classify as an excess of virtue? Who judges that? What excessively virtuous opinions do you regularly come across, on this thread for example?

And yet you happily associate taking the knee with events from America, and use that as part of your basis for the dislike of it. You also ignore that the people doing it have said WHY they are (the equivalent of the words on the banner), and instead focus on your perception of it. I think you're the one tied in knots here.

Great point. Famously the elite are HUGE fans of challenging and changing the societies they exist in that made them elite in the first place. Famously they also want to improve the lot and life of the most downtrodden in the society, usually the ones they take advantage of to make their obscene wealth. I can see it now. The world's billionaires huddled around a table. Finally they have hoovered up 99% of the wealth on our planet and they can enact their master plan - increasing and protecting human rights, letting people choose their pronouns, and fighting racism. What planet do you live on?! This is such a stupid argument. You couldn't exist in society if you held yourself to these standards and refused to do anything that had even the most tangential relation to something you disagreed with. Given the club take the knee by your logic above you should stop supporting City?

Grow up, it's called adults having a discussion Hahaha you have to be kidding, this is literally the only one non football thread on the entire front page. Don't be so dramatic. You were there posting on the first page of this... laughable

Nobody is "telling" you, specifically, anything. You're not understanding. Amusingly you are the terminally offended here. You're looking at discussions of our entire society and trying to apply them to yourself personally. With "Stop and search" above, saying that massively more black people get stopped isn't saying no white people do, or that if you're white police wont target you unfairly. It'd be like saying "1/3 people get cancer but I haven't got cancer. Are you trying to tell me I do?". People are saying that in general if you look across all of our society then black folk have a measurably more difficult time. That is NOT saying: - ALL black folk are poor, or ALL black folk have a difficult time in life - ALL white people have an easier life than ALL black people - White people DON'T have difficult lives, or live in extreme poverty, get discriminated against, and have widespread problems we need to tackle, and so on - An individual white person will always have an easier life than a black person Why do people feel the need to take things so personally? I'm white, and accepting that we have systematic issues in our country isn't a negative thing for me, and doesn't make any struggles I've had feel easier or ignored or whatever. Why does this bother you so much?